OT: Cars, fuel economy, and such

[flydhest]

the VW thread has been interesting and informative. We bought ours because (in part) it got good mileage. We internalized some of the externality (we also don't drive much -- 3500 miles a year).

A recent post noted the likely demise of CAFE standards. Without getting into the partisan politics of it, what are people's views? I am an economist by training, profession, and psychological pathology. I find CAFE standards to be far inferior to a carbon tax if the goal is to improve mileage. Not completely ineffective, mind you, but less effective than a carbon tax alone or the two together. You would shift some demand toward cars with better mileage. CAFE standards, by averaging, distort incentives for producers.

What are the views of this august group?

[zap]

If the goal is to reduce the size of vehicles on us roads, higher fuel taxes can be effective if revenue goes to improving highways, bridges, etc. Germany was disciplined in allocating funds and the roads superb. Not sure if that (fiscal discipline) is still the case.

The USA and state governments.......

[dougdye]

I don't understand why we don't raise the fuel tax. It would encourage drivers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles as well as raise needed funds to improve/maintain our infrastructure.

[shovelhd]

If the fuel taxes went directly into improving infrastructure, I'd be all for raising them. But they don't. They go into the black hole, and I'm dead set against feeding the government machine.

BTW this is a political topic, there's no way around it. Let's see if the forum members have enough discipline to keep it civil.

[fa63]

CAFE standards are there because the "t word" is a non starter in this country.

Which is funny, but regulations like CAFE are essentially the same as a tax, but they are not called one so people are more likely to give it a pass...

[93legendti]

An economist who is for a carbon tax???


Uh, ok.

After an 8 yr period of "tax them all", it's time for a different philosophy. Thank G-d. We aren't Europe and that's the point.


"How Would a Carbon Tax Directly Affect the Economy?

By raising the cost of using fossil fuels, a carbon tax would tend to increase the cost of producing goods and services—especially things, such as electricity or transportation, that involve relatively large amounts of CO2 emissions. Those cost increases would provide an incentive for companies to manufacture their products in ways that resulted in fewer CO2 emissions. Higher production costs would also lead to higher prices for emission-intensive goods and services, which would encourage households to use less of them and more of other goods and services.
Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon tax would be used, such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings, effectively reducing their real (inflation-adjusted) wages. Lower real wages would have the net effect of reducing the amount that people worked, thus decreasing the overall supply of labor. Investment would also decline, further reducing the economy’s total output."


"The costs of a carbon tax would not be evenly distributed among U.S. households. For example, the additional costs from higher prices would consume a greater share of income for low-income households than for higher-income households, because low-income households generally spend a larger percentage of their income on emission-intensive goods. Similarly, workers and investors in emission-intensive industries, who would see the largest decrease in demand for their products, would be likely to bear relatively large burdens as the economy adjusted to the tax. Finally, areas of the country where electricity is produced from coal—the most emission-intensive fossil fuel per unit of energy generated—would tend to experience larger increases in electricity prices than other areas would."


India. China. Next?


"A carbon tax’s effect on the economy depends on how lawmakers would use revenues generated by the tax. The tax would help reduce U.S. emissions but would have only a modest effect on the Earth’s climate without a worldwide effort."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223


Good thing the carbon tax argument lost in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 16.

Remember "it's the economy, stupid"?

[zap]

edit

I don't understand why we don't raise the fuel tax.

oh, it's happening.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/nj_senate_passes_23-cent_gas_tax_road_funding_plan.html

More states will follow.

[fa63]

Carbon tax would be a short-term economic burden of course, but people adjust. While adjusting, it is possible to provide credits to help those who would be affected the most.

Personally, I am OK with a carbon tax on moral grounds. I want to leave the world the same or better than I found it, and I am willing to pay for that. A Piguvian tax (like carbon tax) is the most certain way to address an externality like emissions. But all of this means nothing if one is to believe that the atmosphere is an infinite sink...

[ultraman6970]

The problem goes both ways, the buyers and the american manufacturers aswell. Have european friends that love american cars because are just BIG, know american friends that are like 300 pounds wearing a jetta.

We could get better fuel economy if we had the same rules than europe, cars IMO have way too much weight here in america but people wants their stuff in the cars plus add gvmt safety and epa norms and there you have it, crappppy fuel economy.

Thinking seriously into getting a 3 wheels car for 7000 bucks now just to commute. Dont need enything else anyways.

I don't understand why we don't raise the fuel tax. It would encourage drivers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles as well as raise needed funds to improve/maintain our infrastructure.

[flydhest]

The CAFE standards are more distortion than tax.

93LegendTi. I don't think I disagree with what you quoted. There is a regressivity to carbon taxes that is not great. The imposition of the tax itself would have some adverse economic harm.

What is missing, or wrong with what is quoted, is the false premise that not imposing the tax means not imposing a cost on society. The question should be, could a carbon tax, warts and all, lead to a net improvement.

I will also stress that I framed this as a comparison to CAFE standards, but the question of good or bad is clearly legit.

And yes, this topic is political, but I think it can be non-partisan. Maybe not, but maybe. There are Dems and Reps who both support and oppose carbon taxes.

[Tickdoc]

Fuel tax increases are long overdue and seem to be the only realistic solution to improving our crumbling infrastructure. I live in what has to be the worst road condition place in the us. What scares me is the incompetence displayed in road maintenance and repair. There are only about three construction firms in our illustrious state that win the bids for these big contracts, and none of them know how to properly build or repair a road, imo.

Watching them work is a comedy of errors, and the finished product is hardly a thing of pride.

My whole life I've always marveled at how nice the roads are in other areas.

[flydhest]

I will also add that the vast, vast majority of economists, if asked "what would be the best way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to reduce the carbon footprint" would say "carbon tax." That statement is far from saying that the vast majority of economists would support a carbon tax. You have to buy into the goal etc. I would personally not be opposed to using the proceeds to raise the exemption level for income taxes to offset the regresivity for example and to provide some near-term offset to the economic drag. But of course, money is fungible, so this question of "what do you use the proceeds for" is inherently a bit of a silly one.

[54ny77]

People buy tiny cars in Europe because gas and diesel is double and triple the cost vs the US. And their roads still suck. They're also a heck of a lot narrower in metro areas.

[fa63]

What is missing, or wrong with what is quoted, is the false premise that not imposing the tax means not imposing a cost on society. The question should be, could a carbon tax, warts and all, lead to a net improvement.



Good point.

[jlyon]

The US currently gets about 40% of electricity from coal and les than 20% from Nuclear.

If the carbon/gas tax would be used to swap those % then maybe. But the current politics have prevented new Power plant construction so I don't hold my breath.

What if we could give away electricity for almost free? Electric cars and bikes would take over. The question becomes how to we pay for it and will big Oil/coal have too much power to allow it.

[fuzzalow]

Dunno, haven't given it much thought.

As bad as vehicle emissions might be, the CAFE is probably adequate for the relatively small proportion of its global carbon footprint. And as noted, gasoline tax is already implemented and accepted so that carbon emissions loop is already tax-revenued. IMO rolling back CAFE means nothing other than a gift on corporate taxes for auto makers because their investment into meeting the higher CAFE standard is already a sunk cost.

Carbon tax/treaty is appropriate and much more arduous to implement on an industrial or country scale. The big dirty happens here. Perhaps it better to tax at the point of origin, more akin to a VAT with a higher tax for the how much dirtier the fuel is carbon-wise. Which puts the screws to the coal industry but that IMO is an unavoidable casualty. Frankly, the coal industry shouldn't be allowed to extract product that is taxed the same as other non-renewable energies. If that is the case than coal is given a free ride on the additional carbon dirtiness of the fuel above what other forms of non-renewable energy, if it is taxed at all other than as corporate profit at the end of the chain. I know nothing about the specifics of tax policy on energy extraction so I could be way off base on what I just wrote.

[David Kirk]

I think that realistically that any change in CAFE standards will have little effect on the cars offered for sale in the USA. The state of California (and about 12 other states as I recall) says it will continue to require that cars sold in that state meet the CAFE standards as they currently stand. The California market, combined with the other states, is too large to ignore and at the same time it's much too expensive for a car maker to develop, test, market and sell different vehicles in different states. It just doesn't make financial sense for the car maker.

I think they will relax the CAFE standards and much fuss will be made of it but in the end the car makers will stay on the same path.

dave

[Mikej]

Instead of carbon tax, why don't we call it reduce pollution so we can be healthy? It sounds less like a tax that way, I mean seriously- it's for the children-
I think we need to have some type of rule about buying the biggest truck you can afford cuz that's what you like...oh then we will lose jobs...which is what carbon tax will cause.

[estilley]

I took a really great graduate economics course on global climate change policy last year.

I remember the "goal" set for price per ton of carbon was about $30. Ideally this cost would be internalized and the extra revenue from the tax used to go towards abatement management. The other big take away, was that without a large scientific breakthrough we're kind of toast. I really like the idea of taxing carbon and then exclusively using the revenue for R&D and efficiency improvements. It all starts with EVERYONE buying in. And that is definitely the hardest part as we live short, finite lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ti Designs]

I think the real problem is that we're a really stupid population. Cars keep getting bigger, more people driving trucks, then they come up with a new class - "crossover" which then gets bigger... If people could drive their houses around, they would. Then there's the safety thing, if everybody on your street drives something large enough to land aircraft on, and you're still driving your tiny car from two decades ago, you're gonna get squished.

I'm one of those idiots who doesn't replace things until something truly better comes along. I still ride 9-speed, 'cause nothing better has come along. In 1990 the Honda CRX Hf got 49 MPG. 27 years later the Prius does slightly better, but then the batteries cycle down and over it's life it doesn't.

The argument over safety between older small cars and newer monsters is very one sided - they only look at the safety of the people INSIDE the car. As a cyclist I have a serious issue with this. In my state, the law says that cars may pass when safe. What that means is safe for everyone, but that's not really what the driver is thinking. A Volvo CrossCountry is a very safe car (top safety rating), which means it can run over that cyclist who's making them late for work, without fear of injury to the driver - that's what "pass when safe" means...

Cars have gotten too good and driving is far too easy. People drive up and over Arlington heights in big SUVs without any thought about just how much power that takes. I think everybody should ride a bike for at least a month each year. You want to take something with you? Either throw it on your back or tow a trailer - that'll give them some idea of what it really means to drive a big car.

Or maybe ignorance is bliss...

[fa63]

I think the real problem is that we're a really stupid population...


The average American reads at a 7th/8th grade level.

[AngryScientist]

side topic, but closely related.

i still think the real way to make a different in how much fuel people burn/year is in improving and expanding public transportation.

it is absolutely mind blowing how many Americans NEED to drive just themselves to work every single day. almost anyone i know who has an hour+ car commute would absolutely LOVE to get on a train and fall asleep getting to the office.

if people had more options, i bet a whole lot would choose cleaner, efficient mass transit ways to get to work, but a very very small percentage of the american workforce have that option.

i know that's not easy, or practical in many ways, but i still that that's a great area of focus to start getting us out of individual cars.

[ntb1001]

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.
Gas is considerable higher as it is in Canada due to taxes and on top of that the Ontario government added a carbon tax this past January. I haven't heard of one less driver due to it.
I'm also dead against any carbon or green tax...it just gets lost with government waste.
I think in Canada, we already pay quite a bit in taxes and carbon taxes...our hydro is expensive because of wind turbines that we have to subsidise....then when we have too much power...it's given away for free, or worse pay someone to take it.
Until it's done on a world level, it's a complete waste of time and destroys local economies.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[thwart]

People buy tiny cars in Europe because gas and diesel is double and triple the cost vs the US. And their roads still suck. They're also a heck of a lot narrower in metro areas.

Yeah... sorry but no.

European roads are generally in better shape than ours. At least in the several countries I've driven in.

And when you have roads within cities that are literally thousands of years old... they're likely to be narrow. Really narrow.

[oldpotatoe]

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.

Yup..people will get out of their cars when fuel is scarce. And then we'll have a lot more problems than the availability of gas.

[estilley]

Currently listening to NPR's How I Built This podcast and the guest is the founder of Lyft.

I really think that's a step in the right direction. It's pretty much eliminated people taking two cars to a place when they arrive together/leave separately etc. I know it's a small step, but in a city like Portland that isn't super urbanized, I think it's done a lot of good.

Ride sharing isn't the final solution but it's a component of what will be a diverse transportation future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzalow]

The average American reads at a 7th/8th grade level.

I didn't think it was that high. So I took the first Google return link: Literacy in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States). Snippet as follows:

The 15% figure for full literacy, equivalent to a university undergraduate level, is consistent with the notion that the "average" American reads at a 1st or 2nd grade level which is also consistent with recommendations, guidelines, and norms of readability for medication directions, product information, and popular fiction.

In fairness, I don't think it is quite as low as 1st or 2nd grade unless what I remember of my own 1st or 2nd Grade Catholic Elementary schooling was vastly different from what 1st or 2nd Grade public K-12 schooling is now. We're not that low now, are we?

I would guess that the average US reading level was in the 4th or 5th Grade level - just a guess on my part.

[fa63]

If they don't stop you from driving, then they generate income which can be used for R&D / abatement. Take responsibility for our actions, and pay for what we pollute, right? And if developed nations don't lead the effort, then who will?

[ntb1001]

If they don't stop you from driving, then they generate income which can be used for R&D / abatement. Take responsibility for our actions, and pay for what we pollute, right? And if developed nations don't lead the effort, then who will?
Problem is that it just dosnt happen....it just feeds the Government waste machine.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[thwart]

... unless what I remember of my own 1st or 2nd Grade Catholic Elementary schooling was vastly different from what 1st or 2nd Grade public K-12 schooling is now.

Really, the only difference is the absence of Sr. Ethel...

[witcombusa]

I think that realistically that any change in CAFE standards will have little effect on the cars offered for sale in the USA. The state of California (and about 12 other states as I recall) says it will continue to require that cars sold in that state meet the CAFE standards as they currently stand. The California market, combined with the other states, is too large to ignore and at the same time it's much too expensive for a car maker to develop, test, market and sell different vehicles in different states. It just doesn't make financial sense for the car maker.

I think they will relax the CAFE standards and much fuss will be made of it but in the end the car makers will stay on the same path.

dave

CA is not a good example of ANYTHING!
And any tax is just simple theft at the point of a gun. Period.

[fa63]

Problem is that it just dosnt happen....it just feeds the Government waste machine.



Ah, the good old wasteful government argument... I would never argue there aren't inefficiencies in government, but that does that mean we should do nothing?

[ntb1001]

Ah, the good old wasteful government argument... I would never argue there aren't inefficiencies in government, but that does that mean we should do nothing?
not at all...just think that there has to be a better way than wasting money

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[fa63]

:)

Cap and trade it is, then.

[ntb1001]

:)

Cap and trade it is, then.
if it makes you feel better...send me money and I'll wear a cap!!
[emoji4]

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[Ralph]

The CAFE standards have forced technology to come faster than it would on it's own....don't you think? Lightweight steels, more aluminum, some CF at hi end, aero designs, stop/start, hybrids, all electric, etc. Small engines with turbo charging....I know turbo's been around about 100 years.....but with modern electronics controlling spark....they work good in small engine economy vehicles.

Consider how (relatively) fuel efficient some large vehicle are these days compared to in the past. Do you think manufacturers would have spent R & D without being forced? I'm ready to see them loosened up some....or frozen at current levels a while....but think they weren't all bad. I would favor indexing Fed gas tax to inflation (probably politically doable) ....especially if ear marked to roads and bridges vehicles use....not public transportation systems. Fund competing systems another way.

[Ralph]

RE Gov't waste.....I know it's always fashionable to talk about how wasteful the Gov't is.

I had a class once in Graduate school where we looked at that topic. This was in the early 70's when I was in my early 30's. At that time.....we learned that most estimates put gov't waste at about 5%of money spent.....compared to if same job or projects were done in the private sector. And that number was believed to be fairly steady for the entire history of USA. Lots of reasons, but gov't just not motivated to be as efficient as private business. But point is.....gov't waste not nearly as much as most think.

These studies did not take into account whether or not these departments should exist, whether work needed to be done or not, etc.....just measured the effectiveness of gov't doing something VS private sector. These studies were generally done before Gov't started demanding Union wages on construction jobs in non union locations....things like that. Example....Medicare, SS, and Medicaid....are run very efficiently as a dept. (not saying the policies of who gets it are efficient) This is the price we pay to have gov't....is way I look at it. At any rate....I don't usually complain about general topic of gov't waste. And also believe there are some jobs gov't can do better than private sector.

[fa63]

Couple reasons for perceived government inefficiency:

- Nature of the services government provides (Baumol paradox, I think it is called)
- Transparency / accountability requirements are typically far greater for governments than the private sector (means more paper work, etc.)
- It is easy to pick on them :)

[oldpotatoe]

CA is not a good example of ANYTHING!
And any tax is just simple theft at the point of a gun. Period.

I'm POSITIVE those, paid for with taxes, fire departments trying to save about 1100 homes above Boulder are thinking exactly that. :p

Probably not..tin foil hat time.

[Mikej]

Wasn't there talk of a per mile tax on vehicles so the Prius crowd doesn't get off easy? Or is that just Wisconsin?

[ceolwulf]

Wasn't there talk of a per mile tax on vehicles so the Prius crowd doesn't get off easy? Or is that just Wisconsin?

At some point there will be enough electric cars that they'll have to pay their share for road works somehow.

Granted that almost all damage to roads caused by vehicles is done by heavy trucks, which IMHO should mostly be replaced by rail.

[zap]

edit

Higher taxes on gas don't stop you from driving...it just costs you more for something you can't avoid.

Higher fuel costs changes peoples purchasing decisions.

I'm willing to bet that US$5/gallon fuel prices will result in a dip in SUV sales.

[martl]

If the goal is to reduce the size of vehicles on us roads, higher fuel taxes can be effective if revenue goes to improving highways, bridges, etc. Germany was disciplined in allocating funds and the roads superb. Not sure if that (fiscal discipline) is still the case.

The USA and state governments.......

Germany has (sorts of) taxed emissions and fuel usage by upping the tax on fuel. The price of each liter of gas we buy contains 65.45 ct of tax, for diesel it is at 47.04 ct. That ammounts to roughly 2,60$/2$ per gallon of fuel.

As of emissions, there are EU regulations which will put your car into an "emission class" which will affect what annual tax you have to pay for your car. It is also tied to the cubic inch (ccm for us metric fellas).
Each car is taxed at 6,76 Euro up to 25,36 Euro/100cm³, depending on what Euro Class the car is rated. The rating is what was cheated about in the softare of several car maufacturers. (It is noteable that german VW/Audi owners were *not* eligible for any refund - as car manufacturers represent a significant part of the countries industries, and are happy to exaggerate on this even more, they have the ear of our ministry of transport and the chancellor very much. Technically, what they did would qualify for "assisntance in tax fraud" which is usually not a crime taken easily, but there you are...)

There is no way of evading those taxes. We *do* have a system where cars + their maintenance (including fuel) can be given by companies to employees and be claimed against taxes that comany would have to pay, which would qualify as a tax evasion scheme if one looked closely, but (see above).

In Germany, taxes generally can *not* be put aside for a special purpose, so the mineral oil tax and the car tax can't go directly to infrastructure. Of course, a certain balance is maintained.

As of the infrastructure, that has been deteriorating in the last 2 decades, especially in the "old" federal states (non-DDR) due to lack of funds and the unavoidable public services f*up. Autobahns and main roads ("Bundesstrassen") are responsibility of the state, lesser roads are responsibility of the cities or communes, who often are tight.

Road maintenance is tricky - service it every 10 years for a certain ammount of €, or let it rot and do the necessary minimum/emergency repairs every 30 years for a comparably higher price - the policy has been the latter, recently. It shifts cost to the 5rd election period in the future...

Currently, there is a debate about privatising Autobahns, some already are. The public debate whether that is a good thing or not is going on.

[fuzzalow]

Really, the only difference is the absence of Sr. Ethel...

Yeah, no kidding. During my generation there must of been legions of Sister Ethels that mastered the craft of knuckle raps who were then assigned to Catholic elementary schools throughout the Diocese. Um, of course real corporeal punishment did not actually occur ;), the stern imagery of Sister Ethel and the implied threat was usually sufficient to maintain order. Those were the days...

To close the tangent on average reading level of Americans one more point I would like to make and a frightening one that I hope I am wrong about: reading level establishes a rough equivalence for some forms of intellectual capability because it facilitates, or in its limitation throttles, the inputs into development & growth of any person to learn, grow and function in an increasingly complex society at any and all levels.

I think the real problem is that we're a really stupid population.

There may be some truth in this hyperbole if the reading level of Americans is as bad as Wikipedia claims it to be.

The danger here is that if the average American reads at a 1st or 2nd grade reading level, there leaves open the possibility that he/she also thinks at a level of a 1st or 2nd grader too - a lack of input and stimulus will not serve to enhance and further any person's innate mental processes. And if that is the case, then our nation will suffer tremendous dislocations because a functioning democracy & rule of law both asks and requires something from each of its citizens. There will be other more easier & addictive forms of input, rather than the difficulty of reading, to tell a citizenry what to think when it is apparent the citizenry has no interest or capacity for thinking for itself and acting on its own perceived interests.

Maybe the solution isn't to get people to read better but to get "truthful information of the public concern" out in a more amenable and digestible form. Big ask, IMO as it still requires a basic competence. And in that there also drags in long-term issues on the value, role and competency of public education to aid citizen's ability to function in a democracy.

Nothing simple in anything in life. Sorry, no intent on my part to be a downer. But I never kid myself to try to know what I'm/we are up against.

[Peter P.]

If the fuel taxes went directly into improving infrastructure, I'd be all for raising them. But they don't. They go into the black hole, and I'm dead set against feeding the government machine.

Precisely.

The goal of CAFE standards is no doubt mult-goal: Less pollution, lower costs, and others I'm sure.

I'm not sophisticated enough to understand how carbon taxes would achieve the same goal; the very term sounds to me like hocus-pocus. The fact that companies can trade these credits among themselves sounds like a shell game to me.

[fa63]

Tradable credits (as part of a cap and trade approach) are different than a straight carbon tax.

The ultimate goal of CAFE standards is to reduce the externality (emissions) associated with vehicles. A tax can achieve the same goal by putting a price on what cars emit, assuming the tax is high enough to actually reduce overconsumption.

[Ti Designs]

There may be some truth in this hyperbole if the reading level of Americans is as bad as Wikipedia claims it to be.

I didn't say "they're idiots", I said "we're idiots", myself included. Dare I ask how many people here drive vehicles that weigh over 5000 pounds and have at least 5 seats, as personal transportation??? It's not a question of reading level, it's a question of perspective. If nobody ever sees themselves as part of the problem, the problem never gets solved. On the other hand, you can always blame the problem on all those other people...

[fuzzalow]

I didn't say "they're idiots", I said "we're idiots", myself included. Dare I ask how many people here drive vehicles that weigh over 5000 pounds and have at least 5 seats, as personal transportation??? It's not a question of reading level, it's a question of perspective. If nobody ever sees themselves as part of the problem, the problem never gets solved. On the other hand, you can always blame the problem on all those other people...

Yes, I understood what you were saying. And yes, I was extending the gist of what you were saying to include all of us, including me, as a nation, to the topic I was writing about. We were talking on slightly different problems and trains of thought however the core throughout both our discussions remains of one concerning perspectives.

I am not blaming others, I accept my responsibility and contribution to larger problems and I ask others to accept the same and together we work towards a solution. "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

I have never owned or desired a SUV in my lifetime. I'd dare say that I have never owned a vehicle in excess of 4,000 pounds in GW (Gross vehicle weight). I have however participated in motorsports which some might view as wasteful of gasoline - to them I'd say there's good in all things taken in moderation.

[cmg]

sorry off topic. "gov't waste not nearly as much as most think." :D ever see a govt. construction project? oh yea, we sink lots of dollars.

[CunegoFan]

I took a really great graduate economics course on global climate change policy last year.

I remember the "goal" set for price per ton of carbon was about $30. Ideally this cost would be internalized and the extra revenue from the tax used to go towards abatement management. The other big take away, was that without a large scientific breakthrough we're kind of toast. I really like the idea of taxing carbon and then exclusively using the revenue for R&D and efficiency improvements. It all starts with EVERYONE buying in. And that is definitely the hardest part as we live short, finite lives.


The large scientific "breakthrough" is already here. It's called solar. It will kill the treehuggers to admit it--so they won't--but the businesses that spread propaganda about global warming because they did not want to finance speculation about an uncertain future will ultimately be proved right. Declining carbon emissions won't happen from the idiocy of freezing standards of living at 1990 levels but by technology making solar cheaper than digging fuel of of the ground.

[Mikej]

Actually, the real scientific breakthrough is population control...

[Fatty]

Fuel tax increases are long overdue and seem to be the only realistic solution to improving our crumbling infrastructure. I live in what has to be the worst road condition place in the us. What scares me is the incompetence displayed in road maintenance and repair. There are only about three construction firms in our illustrious state that win the bids for these big contracts, and none of them know how to properly build or repair a road, imo.

Watching them work is a comedy of errors, and the finished product is hardly a thing of pride.

My whole life I've always marveled at how nice the roads are in other areas.

If TUL means Tulsa as in Tulsa OK I feel your pain. Once I made the mistake of getting on the Will Rogers turnpike and sitting in grid lock while some crew fixed pot holes.
I live in northern Illinois and I thought we had the worst roads in the nation. I kind of sure we have the highest gasoline taxes and toll roads to add insult to injury.

[flydhest]

I didn't say "they're idiots", I said "we're idiots", myself included. Dare I ask how many people here drive vehicles that weigh over 5000 pounds and have at least 5 seats, as personal transportation??? It's not a question of reading level, it's a question of perspective. If nobody ever sees themselves as part of the problem, the problem never gets solved. On the other hand, you can always blame the problem on all those other people...

I will bite.

I don't know the weight of my car, but it has 5 seats, with the option to use two more. We put about 3000 miles on a car per year and I would estimate that less than 10 percent of the time/miles that it is driven that it has fewer than three people in it. Am I still an idiot? I do think of it as personal transportation.

I put 3K miles per year on the car and 5K to 10k miles per year on bicycles. I also think of the bikes as personal transportation, and one of them allows me to carry both kids to the market every Sunday.